More important to stay home for school aged kids?

So I was watching Julia Sweeney on Morning Joe this morning because she's on tour for her new book "If It's Not One Thing It's Your Mother." In the course of talking about being a mother she talked about how as they get older it goes from being physically demanding to really tough mind games with school age children.

She kind of threw it out there as an aside but she said she advises new mothers to plan your life so that if you can stay home, do it during the school years.

She even said "I feel like you should work the most when the kids are really young." When they are little it's just diapers and chasing them around. So if you have a loving nanny, that's good enough, she said. But once they get into school its a mental game

"I feel like the game really kicks in when they are older,"

When they get older and if you can be home when they get home from school you can visit and deal with whatever happened in school that day and that's when the memories are made.

I have to admit I really agree. I cut back to part time when my kids came along and I spent 10 years doing that. Now I'm back to full time and my youngest is in third grade and I really miss the afternoons with them. By the time I get home they've already talked out what happened and so very often forget to tell me stuff, like report cards arrived or they had school pictures that day or whatever.

Looking back I would have flipped it. They both took 2 naps until age 2 and then napped every day until kindergarten so it's not like I would have been missing much. I still would have been there in the mornings and nights and my kids' preschool was 2 blocks from my office so I would have had lunch with them regularly. And they really have no memory of the toddler music classes we did or the library trips we took. They do however love that I take spring break week off with them and we go to the beach, invite their friends over, etc.

If given a choice, which age would you rather stay home with kids and why?

--

~Sharon~

"To raise nice kids, you have to talk to them like they are people instead of talking to them like they're property." -- Frank Zappa

Comments (272)

I was lucky enough to stay at home for the first 18 months of DS's life. I think it really helped in his early development. At that point, both he and I were ready for a change. He is one of those kids that thrives in a social setting. Our plan is to still send him to preschool once the LO is here and I possibly take another break from work (around a year). I would preferably go back to work part time then, because I agree with the sentiments of the writer that our kids do need a parent figure to be home with them - that could be parents or grandparents.

I would also like to add that I do pick up from pre-school/daycare and he is the most talkative right after I pick him up and won't tell DH everything when DH comes home. If this continues as he gets older, I would want to hear everything that happened during the day from him and hopefully guide/counsel him appropriately.

Yes, I would suggest you go back and look at it again. It's not mother, it's not parent, it's loving caregiver. Erikson has been roundly critisized for placing so much focus on the mother when there is not adequate support fo it. Comparing a child in an orphanage that is purposely withheld affection with a child that has a doting mother without examining the in between, which includes affectionate daycare providers, is horrible research and does not prove anything.

This is the same BULLSHIT arguement DH's exwife pulled when they were disputing custody. I have piles upon piles of documentation that shows that stable loving caregivers, even if they are not always the parent, are what the child needs. The human experience is far more complex than you are making it out to be.

Even in Erikson recognizes the importance of adolescence through the concept of diffusion where adolescents are more likely to succumb to peer pressure. Erikson also stated that family of origin still plays the most significant role in forming identity.

Sorry, who exactly is Julia Sweeney and what degree does she hold? Isn't she an actress? Wait, if so ppl are holding her opinion as the rule?

@changing-which is it? Erikson stated the importance of mothering the baby/toddler or not? The idea is that if the child can rely on parents (caregivers) then they learn self-trust which translates to feeling more secure in the later stages. Teens are peer driven and would much rather spend time with friends, not their parents. This "theory" this Julia person came up with is backwards as the baby/toddler craves parents the most at that age. To minimize the value of being there during those years is strange as that is when they are home the most and crave you the most. Are you all thinking your teen is going to want to hang with you more as a teen or is more of a logistical thing?

Honestly, the personal experiences don't do much for md as I can spout off many other experiences that will challenge them. Give me research based stuff and I would love to read how teens crave and need more attention than babies/toddlers.

The operative owrk you are missing is CAREGIVERS. Erikson lookedo nly at babies with NO physical attention from any one to babies with a doting parent. The range in between was not studied. The research since then has been consistent in finding that loving caregivers whether the parent or other caregiver during baby/toddler years is important so long as the caregiver is affectionate and reliable.

I give research and you just ignore it so your really aren't interested in that either so... you have your opinion and have no desire to modify it. Just own that.

Whether a child learns to use a spoon from his nanny vs. his mother won't have as big of an impact on the person they will become as if the mother clues in on the emotional upsets of tweens or bullying.

I'm not saying parenting is unimportant in the toddler years, but its more primal. The nuances and head games of the teen years require a lot more parental attention IMO

The above makes a good point as well. For example, TBH daycare is PT DS waaay more than I am. Fine w/ me. He still knows I'm his mother and his primary caregiver and he is securely attached to me and does wonderful at daycare. I don't think I'm missing out on a lot really by working right now. My presence is already strong w/ them and going to daycare and preschool is doing nothing but helping them.

I don't think teens want to hang out more with their parents, but I think the notion that we assume babies and toddlers need us more is untrue in many ways. They are more dependent on us, or someone, for day to day care and older children and teens aren't. But having a strong parental prescence at home during the confusing and trying tween/teen years can often be more important than during the toddler years. I get that aspect as well.

Yes, I would suggest you go back and look at it again. It's not mother, it's not parent, it's loving caregiver.

==

This. Of COURSE the toddler years are crucial, but I don't think it is a stretch (or disrespectful to SAHMs) to point out that the kind of learning that takes place in this period of time can be accomplished with a stable, loving nanny/ provider in conjunction with a parent. Kids need a safe, loving set of arms - people other than moms and dads can do that.

As they get older, the issues inevitably get more complicated - what a 13 year-old girl needs to trust her mom is deifferent than what a 2 year-old girl needs.

I think that "best" is family-specific, but I have planned since before my first pregnancy (my oldest is nearing 6) to stay home more when they are older. I have spent 15 years setting up a career specifically to allow me this flexibility.

--

I'm gonna be over there at the bar, drinking a lot, if anybody needs me. -Toby Ziegler